User talk:Archduk3/Archive 16
Production years Please note that you left about 400 double redirects sitting around in the DB from your page moves (all the "month year" redirects), and all of the interwiki links on the other languages for each year have to be fixed now too. Also, the discussion was that we weren't going to rename templates, simply update them to use the "corrected" yearlink format. I'm not sure why you began doing that method of things too... -- sulfur (talk) 11:24, February 18, 2016 (UTC) :I'm aware that this is a big move and it was done bit messily, but really only you could have done it cleaner, and I felt like making some changes, which is enough of rarity these days that I figured I should indulge before my revulsion to what wikia has made this place overpowered it. I'm sorry if the time constraints I'm working under left things in a "less than optimal state", but I didn't leave anything outright "broken". :Eventbrowser hasn't been a good name for years, and since I figured out a better way to do the same thing while I was looking at it, I figured "why not now" considering everything else I was doing. I had actually planed to finish changing those at least, but RL things came up. - 14:52, February 18, 2016 (UTC) Category:Starfleet Academy personnel Hi, please see my comment on Category talk:Starfleet Academy personnel. I'd also like to point out that all the cadets weren't on the original list. Kennelly (talk) 15:31, March 13, 2016 (UTC) Jonthan Archer We have Jonathan Archer (alternate reality). So he had to be alive in the prime reality at least in 2222, Montgomery Scott's birth year. Why? Because theoretically (and very theoretically) the incident could have taken place before the Alternate reality split, but no earlier than Scott's birthdate. He simply can't have died in 2221, because then there was no way Scotty could ever have beamed his beagle away. Kennelly (talk) 16:32, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :A) this would be better stated on the talk page of the article rather than somewhere it's going to be lost. :B) Since the birth year of Scott is completely illogical and impossible for this to have happened, why not push it to the year of the split? :The big issue I have here is that there's no firm backing up of this material in a logical way with an actual CITEABLE date. The only firm date we have in there is 2192. Could we footnote that to a BG note about the transwarp beaming thing? Sure. But I dislike the current presentation of a random date. -- sulfur (talk) 16:36, March 14, 2016 (UTC) ::The sidebar doesn't replace the article. Unless there's an in-universe bit of text and a citation on this, it's not a "hard" fact. - 17:46, March 14, 2016 (UTC) More categories This is both a thank you for supporting and commenting on my prior category suggestions, and a request that you check out my newer ones. I wish there was a way to get more people to visit that page and the merge/move/split page more often. --LauraCC (talk) 18:55, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :While input would be nice, remember that silence is consensus and the only difference between direct support and no opposition for categories is . - 19:01, March 14, 2016 (UTC) I actually didn't know that. It's just I hate to make deletion work for someone. --LauraCC (talk) 19:11, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :This is the acceptiable kind of deletion work, because it falls under the speedy deletion guideline. :) - 19:15, March 14, 2016 (UTC) That being said, I'll wait for most of these and see if your supports cause someone else to raise an issue. --LauraCC (talk) 19:17, March 14, 2016 (UTC) "Archer" My issue with this being a general redirect... is that it now opens up "McCoy", "Kirk", "Picard", etc as redirects to the "main" people. With it as an RD to the alternate reality link... it doesn't. Either that, or we simply replace it with the disambig page and call it a day... -- sulfur (talk) 10:12, March 15, 2016 (UTC) :The latter works for me. - 13:29, March 15, 2016 (UTC) OK, I'll do that today then. -- sulfur (talk) 14:22, March 15, 2016 (UTC) Unnamed painters Do you by any chance know because of what policy or precedent we create articles for painters that were never mentioned but from which a painting was seen? I've been trying to dig that up while figuring out the correct vote for A.E. Housman, but without success. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:00, March 17, 2016 (UTC) :This might fall under the MacArthur "rule". There's also the which deals with identifying paintings by sight, but that doesn't deal with the painters. I think MA:COMMON is what's used to connect painters like Leonardo da Vinci to his paintings seen on screen but not directly stated or referenced as his work. I feel like there was something on this, bit I couldn't tell you where. - 06:51, March 17, 2016 (UTC) Hmm, too bad, but thanks for the reply anyway, I figured if anyone might know it it might be you. It's very hard to find the origins of these practices sometimes. Incidentally MacArthur was only kept by default, for lack of consensus either way. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:04, March 17, 2016 (UTC) Swearing in an edit summary Hi, Archduk. Just a quick note to say please don't swear in your edit summaries. Thank you. --Defiant (talk) 06:22, April 6, 2016 (UTC) Assistance required Hey Duke, I'm in need of assistance as I've added a new home media format...Could you, with all due respect, #Adjust the "Home Video Formats" template to reflect this, and while you're at it, allow for the ancient Super 8 format as well (there is at the very least one such release known, i.e. for ) #Introduce a sidebar template with another purty color for this new format...I've started an article for the first title, but had to use the Betamax template(s) in lieu, in anticipation of a new one... Thanking you profusely in advance. P.S.; Would you also be kind enough to move File:Dodge Half-Ton Pickup Truck, top profile military model.jpg to File:Jeep, top profile military model.jpg, a case of mistaken identity, actually my bad.... P.S. 2; If devising a sidebar for Super 8 please note that there is no number of discs, tapes or the like, but rather of (film) reels...,just saying --Sennim (talk) 23:23, May 14, 2016 (UTC) :Done. Thanks for the heads ups on the Super 8, completely missed that. - 23:31, May 14, 2016 (UTC) Hey, you DAMAN, but you knew that, thanks mate...One thingy though, in the first title article I used this in the nav templ. |next = ; Should the "BM" not be adjusted as well?--Sennim (talk) 23:54, May 14, 2016 (UTC) Moving an image Having seen the above conversation, could you handle the move I've requested "here" as you did for Sennim?--LauraCC (talk) 18:40, May 16, 2016 (UTC) :Resolved. -- sulfur (talk) 18:46, May 16, 2016 (UTC) Sort keys Could you please explain what your ultimate goal is with the sort keys? Mine was to get everything into some semblance of alphabetical order, but you seem to have other thoughts... thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 12:58, June 10, 2016 (UTC) :Strict alphabetical order places "personnel" between "operations" and "sciences", so the "base" personnel page is isn't listed first, when it should be. - 13:38, June 10, 2016 (UTC) All along the watchtower... Hi, Archduk. Edit summaries are to be used for what you've done to change a page, not unclear criticisms of the edits other users have made. I've told you about that before, yet you still persist with the latter! Also, please don't vandalize the "Nominations for featured articles" page. --Defiant (talk) 13:16, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Also, deliberate edit warring is unbecoming of an admin. --Defiant (talk) 13:22, June 10, 2016 (UTC) :conflict - It's only unclear if you can't MA:FAP. Since you want to keep pretending you should still be an admin, at least try better to know the relevant policies. - 13:31, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Oh, so now you're a mind reader?! I highly doubt it, Archduk. This isn't anything to do with me being an admin or not being an admin; it's about you not adhering to the policies and guidelines yourself. Perhaps, instead of advising other users to read them, maybe you could not only read them but also put them into practice?! --Defiant (talk) 13:41, June 10, 2016 (UTC) :Removing a nomination in violation of the policy was following it, so I will block you if you undo my edit again. - 13:50, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Archduk, unlike you, I don't do edit warring. --Defiant (talk) 13:53, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Can you please endeavor to be less vague and let me know what part of the cited policy page you believe the Janeway nomination was in violation of? (P.S. does it really have to come to this? Because it shouldn't. Please endeavor to be less vague.) --Defiant (talk) 13:57, June 10, 2016 (UTC) :We'll start with this: :*An archivist may start more than one nomination, provided that the overall number of concurrent nominations doesn't exceed two. :Is it becoming clear yet, or do you need me to hold your hand some more, because that's not even the most of what was wrong. :Then we'll look at the piss poor status of the "blurb", lack of overall correct formatting in the nomination itself and placement of the template, not to mention the page is in the needing citation category. I considered all of that and decided the nomination was frivolous as well as invalid. Is that clear enough for you, or is there something else you could do yourself but feel you need to waste my time with? - 19:20, June 10, 2016 (UTC) ::The first is a reason for removal. The rest are NOT by the policy. ::Note that I've made an addition to the policy that these can be removed without warning, but notice MUST be given to the submitter so that they know what they did wrong. And that's entirely to avoid situations like this happening again. -- sulfur (talk) 19:42, June 10, 2016 (UTC) :conflict - Frivolous nominations can be removed, and "barely" nominating a page needing citation is "not having any serious purpose or value." The rest just informed the overall lack of care put into it. If someone bothers to get the other details right, it can be assumed they just missed the call for a citation; if they don't, I'm think it's safe to assume they didn't bother checking, because they didn't bother with the rest. FAs are nothing if not about the details, and unlike the rest of the wiki, "perfection" at least needs to be in the neighborhood. You're welcome to explain it further, because I'm done with this. - 19:55, June 10, 2016 (UTC) ::Seriously, that policy allowed for anything to be removed JUST BECAUSE an admin didn't like it. That's unacceptable for something that is done as formally as the rest is. I've take a moment to arbitrarily remove that piece of the "policy" because it doesn't suit the rest at all. There's a whole lot of criteria that should be met there, so now it's properly handled that way. If it doesn't meet the criteria, it can be removed. If it does, then it meets the criteria (however awful it may be). ::Also, I've renamed the section header because the prior ones were both verging on a personal attack. The current is far more neutral. -- sulfur (talk) 13:01, June 11, 2016 (UTC) Thank you, sulfur. --Defiant (talk) 14:29, June 11, 2016 (UTC) :"Frivolous" has been part of the policy in one form or another since 2004, and the wording has as been discussed more than once since then, including explictly adding the example of personal preference. I felt that should be pointed out, since the wording changes, including the tweaks I've just done, would really change nothing in this case. Setting aside the other, non-disputed reason for removal, this would still have been removed for not meeting the criteria, and in fact, the new wording means any admin that thinks a nomination doesn't meet the criteria can simply remove it, without having to justify the nomination as frivolous or based solely on personal preference. Changing the wording sulfur hasn't solved your perceived problem, it's just made text more exploitable. That does seem to be the "unspoken" idea here, that I exploited the text, otherwise why change it? - 04:59, June 13, 2016 (UTC) ::Honestly, the biggest issue is the lack of transparency in the process and the condescending edit summary in doing so. My edits were aimed to lean to a) what we state outright above and b) to have some PROPER method of feedback. ::That being said, the grammar/wording changes you made do address what I was trying to state nicely. Thank you for the update on that. -- sulfur (talk) 11:52, June 13, 2016 (UTC) :::I guess maybe the thing to do is to find a word other than "frivolous" that has less connotations of "silly" but rather "not very well though out". I do apologize that my nominations caused this. I was not thinking straight. --LauraCC (talk) 16:24, June 13, 2016 (UTC) :You starting nominations wasn't the problem LauraCC, not finishing them was. Even some of that wasn't really your fault, as I'm tried of having to "run" the FA pages so the procedures are followed correctly, or at all. It's unfortunate that you got caught in something that really didn't involve you beyond the flashpoint. - 03:16, June 15, 2016 (UTC) :::Was the Carter Winston (impostor) nomination unfinished, or was it removed due to lack of a decision after a certain period of time? --LauraCC (talk) 14:52, June 15, 2016 (UTC) Ice Cream Page Mistake Hello, the Memory Alpha page for Ice Cream features a photograph of a cat eating ice cream. The caption is labeled as "Neelix eating ice cream". Neelix is cute and fuzzy but not that cute and fuzzy :) 21:44, June 20, 2016 (UTC) :There is no mistake. The name of the cat is . Tom (talk) 21:58, June 20, 2016 (UTC) ::LOL Barclay named his cat that after the Talaxian, who he's met on comms during the Pathfinder Project. --LauraCC (talk) 17:05, June 21, 2016 (UTC) Question about spoilers for "Star Trek Beyond". Spoilers are allowed for , correct? I already added one, but I just want to be sure before I continue. From the main page and the page, it seems like it's okay. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 03:15, July 22, 2016 (UTC) :As of today, server time, yes, but add either or to the article. - 03:20, July 22, 2016 (UTC) ::Okay. Thank you. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 03:22, July 22, 2016 (UTC) Bad dog... that's no! Why "dear god no"? What'd I miss? -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:35, September 27, 2016 (UTC) :Pages should never link to themselves if it can be helped. That covers using the film template for the sidebar title. Since the actual text didn't use the template though, it's not like using it in the sidebar, which will be replaced with the template when we have an actual release date, was solving the issue of having to change the title manually later. :Using the film template for the displayed title meant that the page looked like it was at ''Star Trek XIV'', which is wrong for obvious reasons. If we want the films page titles italicized, it should be done using the sidebar template, and film 14 can wait. - 17:02, September 27, 2016 (UTC) Yeah, on further reflection it was kinda dumb... :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:15, September 27, 2016 (UTC) New categories I took a look at your new "agencies" categories, and noticed that everything with "Starfleet" in the beginning of its name is filed under "S". Might want to defaultsort them. For instance, "Starfleet Dental" becomes listed under "D" as that is what distinguishes it from other Starfleet agencies. --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, October 13, 2016 (UTC) :First, they're more your categories than mine, since Federation agencies would have had to include them. Second, this is the default sort, unless you mean use the defaultsort magic word/template, in which case you shouldn't do that, since there is only one category for most of them, and removing "Starfleet" is not something that should be done in the other categories. If you want to add sort keys to them though, you're welcome to, but based on sulfur's post on your talk page back in May, I doubt you can even see how, since it seems that you have the wikia category module on, which is the default setting, and that breaks things. Assuming I'm right, I can help you turn it off. - 00:39, October 14, 2016 (UTC) Not removing, just sorting. Would this be comparable to sorting all the S and T Vulcan names by second letter, and therefore just as silly? --LauraCC (talk) 14:41, October 14, 2016 (UTC) :You seem to not be understanding the difference between a sort key, which is a thing you add to a category tag, and defaultsort, which adds a sort key to every category tag on the page. For example: Starfleet Dental is in more than one category. If the sort key "Dental" is added to the Starfleet cat, the page will be sorted in the category as if the name of it was "Dental Starfleet Dental", which will put it where you want. If the defaultsort template/magic word is used, it will do that for the other two categories as well, which means that will remove them from being sorted as "Starfleet" first, which is an undesired effect. The question is, can you see sort keys, or just the defaultsort template? - 16:43, October 14, 2016 (UTC) Yeah, the sort key thing, which I'm not sure if I can see or not. Send me to a page that gives me an example. --LauraCC (talk) 16:48, October 14, 2016 (UTC) :Use the example. - 16:51, October 14, 2016 (UTC) Oh wait, sometimes I remember seeing something but not its name. I got it (see Starfleet Cartography.) But do you agree with the proposal to do this itself? --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, October 14, 2016 (UTC) :If you want to, you can, but the ", Starfleet" part is unnecessary, since all that is doing is making the sort name "Cartography, Starfleet Starfleet Cartography" instead of "Cartography Starfleet Cartography". Why did you move the category before the template though? - 17:06, October 14, 2016 (UTC)